DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Applicant's amendment filed on 6/11/2026 has been entered.
Claim 5 was previously cancelled and claims 2-4 and 6-14 are as previously presented.
Claim 1 has been amended and claims 15-22 have been added.
Claims 1-4 and 6-22 are still pending in this application, with claim 1 being independent.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument [Remarks, p. 7: “Claim 1 has been amended to more clearly define over the cited art and new claims 15-22 directed at described but not claimed features of the invention have been added to assist prosecution.”].
Applicant’s arguments regarding previously presented rejection under §103 of the previous version of the claims in view of amended claim 1 are not persuasive [i.e., amended claim 1 now requiring “…each side-wall panel having a portion free of stiffening elements and greater in width than the respective stiffening element, the portion having a length corresponding to the length of the respective side-wall panel measured parallel to the respective fold line.”; pp. 7-11: “Claim 1 has been rejected under §103 on the combination of US 2010/0133142 of Avery and US 2013/0119068 of Friedl…Therefore, a combination of Avery with Friedl was not obvious for the person skilled in the art and in contrast was in contrary to Avery. The amendment to claim 1 made herewith clarifies that the portion free of stiffening elements has a length corresponding to the length of the respective side-wall panel. The embodiment of fig. 7 of Friedl shows a rigid element 304 formed as a loop. Friedl thus does not show a portion of a side-wall panel free from stiffening elements and having a length corresponding to the length of the respective side-wall panel, measured along the respective fold line. Therefore, amended claim 1 is not anticipated by a combination of Avery and Friedl.”].
Regarding applicant’s arguments that Avery may teach away from the proposed modification [Remarks, p. 9: “Providing a flexible portion at the side-wall panel and having a width larger than the width of the stiffening element as required in amended claim 1 is in contrast to Avery. Flexible portions of side-wall panels do not contribute to an even heat distribution. According to Avery, a person skilled in the art would therefore try to avoid flexible portions of the side panels free of plates.”], it is noted that for a reference to be considered to teach away from a proposed modification such reference must criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the proposed combination. In re Fulton, 73 USPQ2d 1141 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The applicant is further advised that disclosed examples and/or preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments, even if such nonpreferred embodiments are described as somewhat inferior. See In re Susi, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971), and In re Gurley, 31 USPQ2d 1130 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In this case, a PHOSITA would recognize, in view of the teachings Friedl of modifying the size/shape/arrangement of conventional stiffening elements embedded into flexible panels of cooking pans [see Friedl, paras. 0046-0052, and figs. 7-14], it would be obvious to select the size/shape/arrangement of stiffening elements by at least considering the requirements of the given application, e.g., with regards to any desired rigidity or heat distribution.
In response to applicant’s argument that there may be no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references [Remarks, p. 10: “Providing the features of claim 1 in the pan of Avery is in contrast to Avery.”], the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Friedl has been presented as teaching it is known to modify the shape and arrangement of stiffening elements at least for example, within a panel [see new rejection below].
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually [Remarks, p. 10: “A. First, the teaching of Friedl is directed to a cooking pan having a first plurality of flanges and a second plurality of flanges. It is not possible to incorporate this teaching of Friedl into the pan of Avery that has flexible corner portions interconnecting the side-wall panels for retaining the side-walls in an use-position.”], one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, Friedl has been presented as teaching modifying the stiffening elements within a panel of Avery, and not to any modification of the flexible corner portions of Avery.
In response to applicant's argument that it is not possible to use the teachings of Friedl in the pan of Avery [Remarks, p. 10: “B. It is not possible to use the teaching of Friedl in the pan of Avery without a significant change of the construction of Avery because according to Avery it is important that the plates cover the complete side walls for an even distribution of heat. The teaching of Friedl is to provide a pan having flanges having a rigid tube or rod member in the form of a continuous loop (see element 304 in FIGS. 7 and 8). Such loop elements cannot provide an even distribution of heat.”], the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this case, Friedl has been presented as teaching it is known to modify the shape and arrangement of stiffening elements within a panel, wherein these rigid inserts may be in different shapes and materials.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 11:
The recitation of “The pan for holding food according to claim 5, wherein each…” renders the claim indefinite because “claim 5” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required. Examiner will interpret claim 11 as being dependent on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4 and 6-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Avery (US 20100133142 A1) in view of Friedl (US 20130119068 A1).
Regarding claim 1,
Avery discloses: A pan [figs. 1, 17: collapsible pan #10, #110] for holding food for baking or cooking [para. 0003: “The present invention generally relates to baking devices and, more particularly to an improved baking pan that is configured to be collapsible.”] and having a plurality of side walls and a floor [para. 0090: “FIG. 17 depicts a collapsible pan 110 arranged in a use configuration having a generally rectangular base portion 112 and four side portions 122, 124 extending from the base portion 112.”], the pan being formed from a flat mat [figs. 21, 22: polymer-based web #145, which comprises the portion of web #145 molded over plates #144, and connection tabs #118; paras. 0050-0051: “FIG. 21 is a bottom view of the collapsible pan of FIG. 17, shown in a collapsed configuration; FIG. 22 is a top view of the collapsible pan of FIG. 21”; para. 0097: “Additionally, the web 145 may be molded over or around the plates 144.”; para. 0098: “In a preferred embodiment, the connection tabs 118 may be of the same material as the web 145 and may be integral therewith.”] made of a high-temperature-resistant, elastic, flexible silicone rubber or other plastic [para. 0073: “The collapsible pan 10 in the use configuration defines a partial enclosure having a baking surface 42 arranged interiorly of the pan 10 and a heat distribution surface 14 arranged exteriorly of the pan 10. In a preferred embodiment, the baking surface 42 is advantageously comprised of silicone so as to provide a durable, flexible, and non-stick surface for baking”; para. 0100: “The material used to form the web 145, such as a silicone-based polymer, may be configured to provide the collapsible pan 110 with a tendency to lay flat in the collapsed configuration.”], the mat being formed by
at least one floor panel [fig. 17: base portion #112],
a plurality of side-wall panels [figs. 17, 21: side portions #122, #124]
oriented parallel to the floor panel [see fig. 21, showing collapsible pan #110, wherein the side portions #122, #124 are oriented parallel to the base portion #112; para. 0050: “FIG. 21 is a bottom view of the collapsible pan of FIG. 17, shown in a collapsed configuration;”]
with at least two of the side-wall panels opposing each other [see fig. 21, showing x2 side portions #122 opposing each other],
a stiffening element [figs. 17, 21, 22: rigid plate #144]
in each of the two side-wall panels [para. 0093: “As shown in FIGS. 21-22, the collapsible pan 110 is formed of a plurality of rigid plates 144 that form the base portion 112 and the side portions 122,124. The plates 144 provide structure and durability to the collapsible pan 110 when arranged for use. In a preferred embodiment, each of the plates 144 is composed of a metal-based material, such as aluminum or aluminum-based materials.”; para. 0097: “In a preferred embodiment, the web 145 is comprised of a silicone-based polymer that is injection molded around the plates 144 by an overmolding process.”],
a respective straight fold line [figs. 17, 21, 22: edges #130, #132] between the floor and each side-wall panel [see figs. 17, 21, 22] and
along which the respective side-wall panel can be bent relative to the floor panel [para. 0098: “FIGS. 17-20, the side portions 122,124 bend along the edges 130,132 where each is connected with the base portion 112 to be in a generally upright position to define four walls of the collapsible pan 110. Because each edge 130,132 also represents an intersection between adjacent plates 144, the edges 130,132 function as a hinge about which the side portions 122,124 may pivot to be adjusted between the collapsed configuration and the use configuration.”] between a flat rest position [see figs. 21, 22] and an orthogonal use position [see fig. 17], each of the stiffening elements being, measured parallel to the respective fold line, of a predetermined length equal to a length of the respective side-wall panel measured parallel to the respective fold line [see figs. 17, 21, 22]
outside corner panels [fig. 22: connection tabs #118] each formed by respective pairs of corner panels [fig. 22 shows each connection tab divided into a pair] that each connect two adjacent side-wall panels together [para. 0098: “As shown in FIGS. 21-22, the connection tabs 118 extend between the ends of the side portions 122,124.”],
a respective fold line between each corner panel [see fig. 22, showing a respective diagonal fold line bisecting each connection tab #118] and each of the adjacent side-wall panels [see fig. 22, showing a respective fold line between each connection tab #118 and an adjacent side portion #122, #124], and
respective shape-retaining formations [figs. 21, 22: attachment pins #120, apertures #136] that can releasably lock each side-wall panel in its use position [para. [0092]: “The connection tabs 118 are configured for releasable attachment at corresponding attachment pins 120 at ends of side portions 122. In this regard, the side portion 122,124 may be bended upwardly at edges 130, 132 relative to the base portion 112 and each connection tab 118 may be folded back upon itself and attached to a corresponding attachment pin 120 to assemble the collapsible pan 110 in the use configuration, thereby defining the partial enclosure of a baking pan.”].
However, Avery does not disclose the relative widths, measured transverse to the respective fold line (i.e., edges #130, #132), of the respective side-wall panel (i.e., side portions #122, #124) and the respective stiffening element (i.e., rigid plate #144). Specifically, Avery does not explicitly disclose:
each of the stiffening elements,
measured transverse to the respective fold line, being of a predetermined width shorter than a width of the respective side-wall panel measured transverse to the respective fold line,
each side-wall panel having
a portion free of stiffening elements and greater in width than the respective stiffening element,
the portion having a length corresponding to the length of the respective side-wall panel measured parallel to the respective fold line.
Friedl, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a pan [figs. 1-3: adjustable cookware device #100] for holding food for baking or cooking [para. 0020], the pan being made of a high-temperature-resistant, elastic, flexible silicone rubber or other plastic [para. 0046: “It should be appreciated that in various embodiments, the surface of the adjustable cookware device which contacts the food being baked is a silicone material, and is supported with various metal or otherwise rigid inserts. In one embodiment, the metal or rigid structural insert is completely molded over or encapsulated by the silicone material.”], the mat being formed by a stiffening element [figs. 7, 8: rigid insert #304] in each of the side-wall panels [para. 0046: “For example, in one embodiment, the metal insert or structural rigid member inside the silicone flanges or base plate is a rod configured to support the respective portion of the adjustable cookware device.”], a respective straight fold line [i.e., hinge] between the floor and each side-wall panel and along which the respective side-wall panel can be bent relative to the floor panel [see fig. 2 showing a side-wall panel 104b, in a perpendicular orientation relative to the floor panel #102, and fig. 1 showing a respective fold line at the hinge between the side-wall panel and the floor panel; para. 0043: “It should be appreciated that, in various embodiments, the flanges are removably connected to the base plate. In other various embodiments, the flanges are not removably coupled to the base plate. In one such embodiment, the flanges are hinged permanently to the base plate.”], and,
each of the stiffening elements [see fig. 8, showing rigid insert #304],
measured transverse to the respective fold line [i.e., see fig. 8, showing a vertical longitudinal direction transverse with respect to a hinge connecting the lower portion of the side-wall panel #300 to the floor panel #102], being of a predetermined width shorter than a width of the respective side-wall panel measured transverse to the respective fold line, each side-wall panel having a portion free of stiffening elements and greater in width than the respective stiffening element [see fig. 8, showing a cross section view of fig. 7, wherein a portion of side-wall panel #300 between stiffening elements #304 has a width greater than a width of the stiffening elements #304],
the portion having a length corresponding to the length of the respective side-wall panel measured parallel to the respective fold line [see fig. 7, showing stiffening element 304, wherein there exists a portion of the panel 302 free of any stiffening element, e.g., between the outer peripheral edge of the panel 302 and the stiffening element 304 embedded therein, thus the “free” portion would have a length and width corresponding to the length/width parallel to a respective fold line along any edges horizontal/vertical edges corresponding to a length/width.].
Friedl further teaches that the shape and arrangement [see figs. 7-14] of the inserts, and the relative size and shape of the flanges is not particularly limited [para. 0047: “Referring now to FIGS. 7 to 14, various different embodiments of flanges are discussed and illustrated. It should be appreciated that the structural rigid insert can take various alternative shapes as well as materials. It should be appreciated that any combination of materials, alternative shapes and sizes of flanges can be used in various contemplated embodiments of the disclosure.”], and that the inserts ensure even heat distribution [para. 0046: “It should also be appreciated that the metal or rigid insert is configured to help ensure even heat distribution when the adjustable cookware device is placed in the oven or baking environment.”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the pan of Avery by substituting the stiffening elements of Friedl, such that each of the stiffening elements, measured transverse to the respective fold line, being of a predetermined width shorter than a width of the respective side-wall panel measured transverse to the respective fold line, each side-wall panel having a portion free of stiffening elements and greater in width than the respective stiffening element, the portion having a length corresponding to the length of the respective side-wall panel measured parallel to the respective fold line, since this would yield the predictable result of supporting the plurality of side-wall panels of Avery, and since Friedl teaches that the stiffening elements ensure even heat distribution.
Regarding claim 2, Avery in view of Friedl discloses the pan for holding food according to claim 1.
Avery further teaches:
wherein the mat is substantially rectangular in shape [para. 0071: “While the collapsible pan 10 of FIG. 1 is shown with a generally rectangular shape, it is also within the scope of the present invention for the collapsible pan in accordance with one or more preferred embodiments to have any of a range of possible shapes and sizes.”].
Regarding claim 3, Avery in view of Friedl discloses the pan for holding food according to claim 1.
Avery further teaches:
wherein the fold lines are formed by linear areas with material weakening [para. 0095: “The web 145 is configured to permit each of the side portions 122,124 to bend relative to the base portion 112, wherein a portion of the web 145 separates the plates 144 of the side portions 122,124 from the plate 144 of the base portion 112. In this regard, the edges 130,132 where the side portions 122,124 connect with the base portion 112 of the collapsible pan 110 may function as a hinge about which the side portions 122,124 may pivot.”; Examiner is interpreting the absence of stiffening element #144 in the hinge areas of the web #145 as shown in figs. 21 and 22, as material weakening, thus enabling the side-wall panels to bend, relative to the floor panel.].
Regarding claim 4, Avery in view of Friedl discloses the pan for holding food according to claim 1.
Avery further teaches:
wherein the mat has four of the side-wall panels that in their orthogonal use position [fig. 17] form two parallel longitudinal side walls [fig. 1: side portions #124] and two parallel transverse side walls [fig. 1: side portions #122] extending orthogonally between ends of the side-wall panels.
Regarding claim 6, Avery in view of Friedl discloses the pan for holding food according to claim 1.
Avery further teaches:
wherein each pair of corner panels has a respective central diagonal fold line [see fig. 22 showing a diagonal line on corner panels #118; see fig. 23 showing corner panels #118 folded along the respective diagonals].
Regarding claim 7, Avery in view of Friedl discloses the pan for holding food according to claim 1.
Avery further teaches:
wherein the shape-retaining formations are fixed on the mat [see figs. 21, 22 showing the shape-retaining formations fixed on the mat].
Regarding claim 8, Avery in view of Friedl discloses the pan for holding food according to claim 1.
Avery further teaches:
wherein the shape-retaining formations each have a male connector or locking projection [fig. 21: attachment pins 120] and a recess or a plurality of recesses [fig. 21: apertures 136] fittable complementarily with the respective projections [para. 0100: “Placement of the attachment pins 120 in corresponding apertures 136 of the connection tabs 118 provides sufficient structure to the collapsible pan 110 to overcome the natural tension along edges 130,132, thereby preventing the collapsible pan 110 from collapsing during baking”].
Regarding claim 9, Avery in view of Friedl discloses the pan for holding food according to claim 1.
Avery further teaches:
wherein the stiffening elements are in each of the side-wall panels [see fig. 21].
Regarding claim 10, Avery in view of Friedl discloses the pan for holding food according to claim 1.
Avery further teaches:
wherein each panel is substantially planar and in the rest position all the panels are coplanar [para. 0093: “FIG. 21 is a bottom view of the collapsible pan 110 of FIG. 17, shown in the collapsed configuration, and FIG. 22 is a top view of the collapsible pan 110 of FIG. 17. FIGS. 21 and 22 depict the collapsible pan 110 in a collapsed configuration. In the collapsed configuration, the connection tabs 118 are released from the corresponding attachment pins 120 and the side portions 122,124 lay generally flat relative to the base portion 112. Moreover, when in the collapsed configuration, the collapsible pan 110 is generally flat.”].
Regarding claim 11, Avery in view of Friedl discloses the pan for holding food according to claim [[5]] 1.
Avery further teaches:
wherein each of the corner panels is a right triangle and together each pair of corner panels forms a rectangle [see fig. 26 showing an embodiment with rectangular corner panels, divided by respective diagonal fold lines into right triangles].
Regarding claim 12, Avery in view of Friedl discloses the pan for holding food according to claim 1.
Avery further teaches:
wherein each stiffening element [rigid plate #144] is of a material harder [para. 0093: “In a preferred embodiment, each of the plates 144 is composed of a metal-based material”] than that of the respective side-wall panel [i.e., the silicone-based polymer of web #415 molded over plates #144 of side-wall panels #122, #124; see paras. 0095 and 0097].
Regarding claim 13, Avery in view of Friedl discloses the pan for holding food according to claim 12.
Avery further teaches:
wherein the material is a metal [para. 0093: “In a preferred embodiment, each of the plates 144 is composed of a metal-based material”].
Regarding claim 14, Avery in view of Friedl discloses the pan for holding food according to claim 13.
Avery further teaches:
wherein the stiffening elements are imbedded in the respective side walls [para. 0103: “In accordance with one or more aspects, the collapsible pan 310 may be manufactured with a metal material that is insert-molded to form the rigid plates and a silicone-based polymer that is overmolded over the plates to form the flexible web.”].
Regarding claim 15, Avery in view of Friedl discloses the pan for holding food according to claim 1.
Avery as modified by Friedl further discloses:
wherein the stiffening element is shaped as a stripe [Friedl, see fig. 7 showing stiffening element 304 shaped as a stripe; para. 0047: “Referring now to FIGS. 7 to 14, various different embodiments of flanges are discussed and illustrated. It should be appreciated that the structural rigid insert can take various alternative shapes as well as materials. It should be appreciated that any combination of materials, alternative shapes and sizes of flanges can be used in various contemplated embodiments of the disclosure.”].
Regarding claim 16, Avery in view of Friedl discloses the pan for holding food according to claim 1.
Avery as modified by Friedl further discloses:
wherein the stiffening element is at an outer edge of the respective side-wall panel [Friedl, see fig. 7, showing stiffening element 304 disposed adjacent an outer edge of panel 302].
Regarding claim 17, Avery in view of Friedl discloses the pan for holding food according to claim 1.
Avery as modified by Friedl further discloses:
wherein the portion of the side-wall panel free of stiffening elements is between the respective fold line and the stiffening element [Friedl, see fig. 7, showing the area portion of the panel between the stiffening element 304 and an outer edge of panel 302, the outer edge corresponding to the fold lines of Avery].
Regarding claim 18, Avery in view of Friedl discloses the pan for holding food according to claim 1.
Avery further teaches:
wherein the stiffening element is of rectangular cross section with short sides and long sides, the long sides extending transverse to the respective fold line [see fig. 17, showing a rectangular stiffening element 144].
Regarding claim 19, Avery in view of Friedl discloses the pan for holding food according to claim 1.
Avery as modified by Friedl further discloses:
wherein the floor panel is free of stiffening elements.
In this case, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made to omit stiffening elements in a panel such that the floor panel of Avery is free of stiffening elements, since it has been held by the courts that the omission of an element if the function of the element [e.g., if rigidity/durability is not required in a particular panel according to a given application; Avery, para. 0093: “The plates 144 provide structure and durability to the collapsible pan 110 when arranged for use.”] is not desired requires only ordinary skill in the art. See In re Larson, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965), and In re Kuhle, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 20, Avery in view of Friedl discloses the pan for holding food according to claim 1.
Avery as modified by Friedl further discloses:
wherein the stiffening element has a thickness smaller than a thickness of the portion of the side-wall panel free of stiffening elements [Friedl, see fig. 8, showing a thickness of stiffening element smaller than a thickness of all corresponding portions of the panel 302].
Regarding claim 21, Avery in view of Friedl discloses the pan for holding food according to claim 1.
Avery as modified by Friedl further discloses:
wherein the pan has four side-wall panels and respective stiffening elements only in two of the four side-wall panels.
In this case, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made to omit stiffening elements in a panel such that only two of the four side-wall panels of Avery have stiffening elements, since it has been held by the courts that the omission of an element if the function of the element [e.g., if rigidity/durability is not required in a particular panel according to a given application; Avery, para. 0093: “The plates 144 provide structure and durability to the collapsible pan 110 when arranged for use.”] is not desired requires only ordinary skill in the art. See In re Larson, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965), and In re Kuhle, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 22, Avery in view of Friedl discloses the pan for holding food according to claim 1.
Avery as modified by Friedl further discloses:
wherein the pan has four side-wall panels including two long side-wall panels and two short side-wall panels, the stiffening elements being only in the two long side-wall panels.
In this case, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made to omit stiffening elements in a panel such that only two long side-wall panels of Avery have stiffening elements, since it has been held by the courts that the omission of an element if the function of the element [e.g., if rigidity/durability is not required in a particular panel according to a given application; Avery, para. 0093: “The plates 144 provide structure and durability to the collapsible pan 110 when arranged for use.”] is not desired requires only ordinary skill in the art. See In re Larson, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965), and In re Kuhle, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE J EVANGELISTA whose telephone number is (571)272-6093. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9am - 5pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Edward F Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-5567. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THEODORE J EVANGELISTA/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/JIMMY CHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights